Maybe I've missed it, but I am still waiting for an enterprising legal reporter to tell us what it takes to prove criminal intent in a case like Sen. Larry Craig's. Here's the description of the police report in today's Times story:
According to the police report, first obtained by Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper that disclosed the episode and the guilty plea on Monday, the incident began with Mr. Craig’s peering into the undercover officer’s stall several times through the crack in the door.
Then, Mr. Craig reportedly entered the stall to the left of the undercover officer “and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door,” a move the officer said was intended to block the view from the front of the stall.
When he was seated, Mr. Craig tapped his right foot in a signal used by people wishing to engage in lewd conduct, the report said.
After the officer moved his own foot up and down, the report said, Mr. Craig moved his right foot so that it touched the side of the officer’s left foot under the stall divider. Mr. Craig also reportedly swiped his left hand under the stall three times before the officer held his police identification down by the floor so Mr. Craig could see it.
How many such cases are there? How many are contested (I imagine very few, for the same reasons that led Craig to hope this would all disappear without a trace)? Is Minnesota law typical of other states' laws on such things? What's the history of police excesses in hunting down desperate, closeted gay men? These questions obviously matter because an alleged personal indiscretion became a police matter based on someone's interpretation of toe-tapping and hand-waving. Let's learn more about the law, and figure out if it's fair.
